McGinn: Tunnel process ‘a sham’

Mayor Mike McGinn said Wednesday the viaduct tunnel replacement process “is a sham,” as shown by the convoluted, conflicting statements from the state and City Council about an environmental agreement.

McGinn said when City Council President Richard Conlin signed a draft environmental impact statement last week, Conlin said he was approving the draft so the city could preserve its place as a co-lead on the controversial $4.2 billion tunnel project. In a statement released Thursday, Conlin said “City approval” of the EIS was due, so he signed the document.

McGinn on Wednesday

However, this week the city attorney, the state and City Council have said Conlin did not approve the agreement– something only McGinn could do — but rather indicated that the city wanted to proceed as a co-lead. McGinn said that assertion is contradicted by the document Conlin signed, which states “Date of Approval” as Sept. 23.

Last week Conlin told reporters “it’s not a contract, it’s not an agreement; it’s not legislation…All we’re doing is saying this can go forward to the public.”

The mayor said Wednesday “the tunnel proponents will say or do anything to promote the tunnel. This process is a sham. It’s a mockery of the legal process.”

So what does all this mean?

It’s hard to say, and McGinn – who has long opposed the tunnel replacement – wouldn’t be pinned down on exactly what he would do next.

“It just gets murkier,” McGinn said.

“Nobody knows what being a ‘co-lead’ means.”

McGinn did say that as far as he is concerned there is no formal agreement between the state and city that the two governments co-direct the tunnel. McGinn said he would try to find a way forward on this situation.

Conlin declined to comment on McGinn’s statements Wednesday.

“Let’s just cut through all the legal stuff here,” McGinn said.

The mayor said the tunnel proposal was come up with “behind closed doors,” when others were talking about a surface replacement option or a rebuild of the waterfront bridge that carries 100,000 vehicles a day on State Route 99.

“The governor, Mayor (Greg) Nickels and (former King County Executive) Ron Sims came forward with an agreement in which the state agreed it would pay cast overruns – the Legislature changed it. The Legislature put on a cost overrun provision. Some people say it means what it says other people say it doesn’t mean what is says, it just depends on the day,” McGinn said. “They hid from us for months the knowledge that one of the bidders had dropped out…and now, when an EIS comes forward, which the law requires be signed by the Department of Transportation and the mayor – state law, city law … – they claim that they go to the City Council president and commit an act that doesn’t follow any legal process anyone has ever seen before. When they’re caught with their hands in the cookie jar they make up a new excuse.”

McGinn said he called Conlin on Wednesday, urging him to “respect the process.”

“What will I do? I intend to proceed with my understanding of the law,” McGinn said. “We don’t have an EIS with them, we don’t currently have a co-lead agreement, we don’t have an agreement to proceed with the tunnel because the Council didn’t vote for it. I intend to proceed to as if those facts are true and I presume we’ll have a discussion about how we proceed under those circumstances.”

The latest tiff between McGinn and the Council over the tunnel was sparked when Conlin signed the draft environmental impact statement Thursday with the state concerning the tunnel replacement. McGinn, citing city charter and state law, said Conlin overstepped his authority by acting as an executive when he is in the legislative branch of government. Conlin said McGinn was dithering and risked having Seattle lose its place at the table in the direction of the project. McGinn said the state backed out of an agreement to allow him more time to read the environmental report.

On Monday City Attorney Pete Holmes said because Conlin’s signature does not purport to certify the adequacy of the environmental impact statement, it was not an affront to McGinn’s authority.